Reasonable Enough

Sometimes decisions made at the very highest level of administrative-executive government are not very bright. One of those decisions is that of the current Government of Canada to silence government-employed scientists. Another is the decision by the Conservative-led government - which has made a host of other, unrelated decisions which have been good for Canada - to close down some scientific-based enterprises.

A nation like Canada, with its enterprising spirit and emphasis on higher learning and the support of pure science, should recognize the ongoing need of supporting some government-sponsored initiatives such as Arctic research stations and environmental tracking systems whose results are globally shared and upon which results the international scientific community depends to advance their own scientific endeavours.

There have been protests against this government's plans to shutter some distinctly important scientific areas of investigation from both within Canada's academic institutions and those of other countries who see the loss of data emanating from those areas of research impacting deleteriously on scientific data-gathering in general, and their own work in particular.

And Canadian scientists employed by government departments and agencies are chafing under the indignity and lack of usefulness of silencing them. There is an insistence by government that all scientific study data and even generalized information not be discussed in public, that only appointed and approved sources be given permission to release information.

An open letter signed by groups representing scientists and science writers across Canada has been sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, asking him to cease "muzzling" federal researchers. Coincidentally, at a panel discussion during the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual conference, numerous instances of government interference in the release of information were cited.

The conference panel emphasized that rigid control of information dissemination is affecting morale among government scientists. The public, further, is being denied access to information about climate, agriculture and the environment. "Why are we suppressing really good news to Canadians - that is, successful science being done in federal government labs?" asked a climate scientist at the University of Victoria.

"Why don't we open it up? there's nothing to be feared but success." Andrew Weaver

In contrast, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States are encouraged to speak to the media without an intermediary, through a recently adopted policy. Under that policy scientists are free to express themselves, making it clear while so doing that they speak for themselves, not the agency.

"Despite promises that your majority government would follow principles of accountability and transparency, federal scientists in Canada are still not allowed to speak to reporters without the 'consent' of media relations officers", read the letter signed by The Canadian Science Writers Association, World Federation of Science Journalists, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, among others.

The government's response sounds reasonable enough on the surface: "...interviews or technical information on specialized subjects are directed to knowledgeable managers or staff designated to speak as official representatives. As well, public web portals, such as the Science and Technology for Canadians website, have been developed to communicate information on federally funded science and technology directly to Canadians."

And that's really excellent on the face of it. For that represents the official government expression of formal release of pre-approved information. It does not, however, address the need for individual scientists to be able to speak in interviews of their research findings should they wish to, as individuals who just happen to work for the federal government.

Time to turn that policy of ultra-discretion around, enabling those in the profession to express themselves independent of government under the understanding clearly stated when so doing, that they are revealing their own impressions and findings, which can be supplemented by searching out government-expressed conclusions.

Reasonable enough.